It is not difficult to excuse this sort of excess, e.g.
Well, we're saving the planet. That deals with the conscience.
The IPCC, the Royal Society and other Government-funded bodies, all say we are doomed unless we reduce CO2. That deals with the 'rightness'.
But what is the reality? First, with regard to the weather phenomena of the planet, nothing at all extraordinary has happened anywhere with regard to temperatures, precipitation, storms, ice extent, glacier movements, or sea levels. All we are seeing is perfectly consistent with business as usual for a turbulent atmosphere with a complex, irregular surface, and varying orbital, solar, and oceanic features. The null hypothesis of 'business as usual' has not been discredited by observations.
Second, with regard to argument from authority, the circular nature of that can only be broken when pushed into, when it will be discovered that political activists orchestrated a global panic by exploiting the conjectures of a few dozen workers in the field of climatology, especially those parts relying heavily on computer models. The limitations of their work are becoming more apparent year by year. Let it be summarised as follows: the computer models are too primitive to be fit for prediction, the data sets are too sparse in both space and time to be sufficient as a detailed guide to what has happened in the past, let alone be capable of reliable extrapolation into the future.
So, we are in a situation in which nothing unusual has been seen to be happening to the weather, to the sea, or to the ice. There has been a remarkably steady growth in ambient CO2 recorded at Mauna Loa, a volcano on a Pacific island. Just about anything and everything in and around the atmosphere can influence climate, including CO2. The problem is not determining whether this factor or that has an influence, but rather it is determining the nature and the magnitude of it. The simplest model for increasing CO2 levels is that they would lead to a modest overall warming, one which would be hard to reliably confirm in the variability of temperatures due to all the other factors involved, a warming of around 1C for a doubling of the ambient levels. But a few people programmed up computers to illustrate a much more dramatic effect of CO2 via an unconfirmed positive feedback mechanism. This was spotted as a godsend by those who wished to see an end to industrialisation or a weakening of western power or a dimunition in energy consumption or a reduction in population or an overthrow of capitalism or a massive transfer of cash to the developing countries or the dawn of world government or a rise in their own level of recognition as wise prophets or seers or an increase in the audience for their media or an increase in the grants awarded to their institution or more votes for their party. And what a hugely successful 'big thing' they have made of it over the past 30 years. That man-made CO2 is leading to catastrophe is now a 'given' in our schools, and leads to events such as this one: